Originally Posted by pgwenthold
Actually, there is an importance difference between the two.
Let's assume that the question is whether dark-skinned people--a minority--ought to be allowed to vote. In the event that this right to vote is eventually put into place, the light-skinned people actually do lose something
. In particular, their voting power is diluted. If more people enter the voting pool, the power of a single vote is reduced.
Or if a court ruling determines that minority students ought to be allowed to attend a school that was previously attended only by students of the majority, the majority could actually lose
something: classroom space, teacher-to-student attention, convenience.
In the case of same-sex marriage, however, the granting of equal protection to same-sex couples deprives the opposite-sex couples of nothing. Voting power and schools are limited resources, but marriage is virtually an unlimited resource.
Indeed, the advocates argued to the Iowa Supreme Court that same-sex marriage would hurt opposite-sex marriage. The Court asked a simple question, "In what way?" There was no answer to this question that could withstand even modest scrutiny, and as far as I can tell there remains no reasonable answer today. Some people feel
that they have been hurt by the ruling, but they are unable to say how